The Doublethink of the Origin of Life

George Orwell, in the book Nineteen Eighty-Four coined the term "Doublethink" , holding two opposite thoughts as true at the same time.

The first time I experienced "Doublethink", though I did not realize it at the time, was high school…..

In tenth grade, I was taught these two opposing ideas:

  • Health Science class taught me that "spontaneous generation" was a term for a false belief held my ignorant people long ago, that life could arise in non-living matter.
  • Biology class taught me that "evolution" was a term for the scientific belief that life had arisen in non-living matter.

I was taught that the belief in the origin of life from non-life was both not scientific and scientific in the same year of school. Some how or other I believed it. I must have had very good teachers.

I was in 10th grade in the late sixties, and scientists have wised up since then. They have changed the definitions so you don’t realize the inconsistency.

If you look up "spontaneous generation", now, it says "abiogenesis", and if you look THAT up, it means the spontaneous generation of life from non-life. But, they have totally removed the origin of life from "evolution", again, giving the new name, abiogenesis, to the origin of life.

They really had to back pedal some so people could swallow it whole without thinking…..

Have you heard of Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)? He discovered “germs” which caused disease. He did a lot of scientific research about how germs form. The people of his day believed that sickness could just appear. But he proved that sickness is caused by a germ, which has to come from another germ. He said this about “Spontaneous Generation”:

No, there is now no circumstance known in which it can be affirmed that microscopic beings came into the world without germs, without parents similar to themselves. Those who affirm it have been duped by illusions, by ill-conducted experiments, spoilt by errors that they either did not perceive or did not know how to avoid.

(Here’s a link to a biography of Pasteur in Google Books so you can read it yourself)

Louis Pasteur, who died in 1895, proved scientifically that life can only come from life, it cannot come from non-life. Yet, since there is no scientific alternative to the miracle of creation by God, life from non-life is still taught as a fact, but under a different name: “Abiogenesis”.

Scientists these days have tried to totally avoid talking about the "origin of life" because even they admit it has never been proven, and they want to hide it under the rug so they don’t look like idiots. They removed the "origin of life" from "evolution", where it was a part for many years, then renamed it.

They haven’t managed to get all the dictionaries rewritten yet. If you look up “abiogenesis” in some dictionaries, it says:

–noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

(Emphasis mine)

To keep people from wondering about how life got started in the first place, scientists today use a form of what magicians call “misdirection”. They concentrate on something else entirely, hoping you won’t notice what is really happening.

So, they concentrate more on the proven parts of what they call "evolution". They say things like this: that moths in a population can change from mostly white, then mostly black, and then mostly black again, and that this proves "evolution", and thus disproves creation from God.

But, "evolution" does not explain the "origin of life", so it can not disprove, or stand as an alternate explanation for, the creation from God. It only says that living things change, and that is totally compatible with creation from God.

“Evolution” is just perching precariously upon a foundation of nothing at all. “Evolution” is now defined a the change within living things. Change from what? There is no evidence at all that living things got here at all without the miracle of creation from God. So, the debate is not about evolution verses creation because evolution does not explain the origin of life.

Biblical creationists, like me, believe that God created the basic types of animals with a capacity to have many variations. Then,  all the variations filled the various ecological and geographical niches. The variation of the animals to fill the various niches is called "evolution" by some. but it is really only the scientific fact of genetics.

Read about Gregor Mendel some time. The science of genetics came from his work on peas. Yes, there were a lot of changes to the peas. He made many different variations of peas by crossbreeding. But, no matter what he did, all he ended up with was more peas. Nothing ever became anything else.

Genetics and “evolution” are too different things. One is science, one is not.

Plus, there is no scientific alternative to the creation of (origin of) life by God.

Don’t be fooled. Life is a miracle.

X

 Bookmark and Share

Sign Up For Alerts

24 Comments

Filed under My Faith

24 responses to “The Doublethink of the Origin of Life

  1. Greg

    In practical terms, "spontaneous generation" meant the common perception that things sprouted up all the time from non-living things. For example, before it was disproved by Pasteur, people commonly believed that flies were spontaneously generated from rotting meat, simply because they frequently observed maggots there. He was able to demonstrate that flies lay their eggs on the meat, and those eggs hatch into maggots. To me, that\’s a hugely different question from where life originated in the first place. Spontaneous generation isn\’t the same thing as abiogenesis, and neither necessarily have anything to do with the biological mechanisms of evolution.The beauty of (real) science is that there is no "belief" structure. One does not believe in science, you accept a best possible explanation supported by the evidence until a better one comes along. Science doesn\’t know how life started, but then only a few hundred years ago, science didn\’t know where maggots came from. Now we do.I\’d also say that many scientists are very willing to accept the possibility that God created everything (especially depending on the definition of "God"). Can Biblical creationists say they\’re open to the possibility that God had nothing to do with it? Above all else, that\’s why creationism isn\’t science.

  2. Mandy

    Back to the old round and round in circles X – there is no evidence, and never will be, that god created life, (that is why they call it faith) but What happens, if and when the science of genetics, proves the theory of evolution?Life is a miracle, just not necessarily one of the gods

  3. X-Evolutionist

    Mandy, aren\’t you glad we are all able to voice our opinions? X

  4. Greg

    X, you\’re citing a 19th century chemist. Darwin was a 19th century naturalist. You do realize that science has made significant breakthroughs in the last 150 years, right?

  5. X-Evolutionist

    Greg said: "You do realize that science has made significant breakthroughs in the last 150 years, right?"OK, post a url for a website showing the proof that life arose from inorganic matter. Then, I\’ll give you your next assignment.X

  6. X-Evolutionist

    Greg, You have as much faith as I do. You just don\’t admit it. You believe that life arose on its own. There is no proof for that. Believing in something without proof is called faith. Neener. X

  7. X-Evolutionist

    Creation bump

  8. Diana

    Wow, this sure is a hot topic in the US. Here in Oz, we don\’t learn anything that interesting. We just get given the bare facts for both sides and ask to memorise them in our science class. There\’s a movie that\’s just been released call \’Creation\’ based on the best selling biography about Charles Darwin. Speculation has it that it will not be taken up in the US due to the whole creation-evolution controversy. However, since the movie co-stars one of my personal black-listed actress Jennifer Connelly, I don\’t think America is missing out on much.

  9. X-Evolutionist

    Hi Diana Le. I\’ll have to watch out for that movie. Actually, if you read what Darwin wrote in Origin of Species, he mostly said things that fit in fine with creation. He wrote, for instance, that finches on different islands have different shaped beaks. That is just genetics. There is nothing controversal about that. My explanation is that God created the basic "finch" type of bird with all the genes necessary to enable it to live in any ecological niche. But, not all animals will survive, the ones most capable to survive, will. That is not creating NEW species, that is a population of animals dying off. The short beaked finches won\’t survive on an island were all the food is grubs inside small holes, so they die out. The long beaked finchs survive. No matter how long that situation goes on, they will all still be finches. X

  10. John

    Hi X, did you happen to read about the skulls found in Georgia (the country) that are dated at 1.8 million years old? This throws Darwin\’s theories in upheaval as even evolutionary scientists are stating that for a single proto-human to originate in Africa, go up to northern Europe, then go back to Africa in time to spread across the planet in the existing models makes little to no sense. My issue with the evolution theories is this, why has it seemingly stopped? Over the last 5,000 years of recorded history, by ancient societies outside of the west, there is excessive documentation on observation of nature and creatures in it and to this day little has changed. If garaffes grew longer necks to get more food when they needed it, why not others and why has this trend continued, obviously the garaffes have not died off by natural selection, nor has any creature followed suit by natural selection. The great and lesser ape and monkey species have not shown signs of becoming more human, we have only validated their intelligance with experiments, not shown how they are developing complex languages, cultures, or primitave civilizations.What gets me is that science demands the same leap of faith in believing their theories that religions do for theirs. We are to believe some premordial soup was hit by a commet, astroiid, or debris at the time lightning struck and sunlight appeared to grow a protein that then progressed into this or that which ended up being what we have today. If so, why hasn\’t everything left the ocean by now, why can\’t we all fly? Natural selection logically leads to specialized species who would be easy to die off once the environment changes a slight bit, we have not seen this. Our world is too complex and diverse yet too many similarities amungst the species to conclude that of the hundreds of species of herbavor birds in a specific environment, why hasn\’t one become so dominant as to subplant the rest or at least thin the field into fewer competitors? Until a Dr. Frankinstein emerges all the science guys can do is say their theories are sound, but unless you can replicate it then a theory is nothing more then an educated guess. If may look like a simple jump to them, but if they can\’t replicate it then it is not so simple, and this is what needs to be taught, not that one side is correct but that these are the most popular theories out there at the moment, until something more can be presented.

  11. X-Evolutionist

    Hi John, What is really funny to me is how often even evolutionists disagree about the "facts". Aren\’t "facts" factual? Here is something I just wrote in a debate on IMDB.com:Secular scientists who believe in evolution do not even agree on everything: Evolutionists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge came up with "Punctuated Equilibrium" which explains why there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. Francis Crick who co-discovered DNA with Watson, said DNA is too complex to have developed on its own and believed Panspermia, the notion that the earth was seeded by life on other planets. So, if I say that there are no transitional fossils, and that life did not begin spontaneously, I have good company. I did not learn this stuff from creationists. I learned this stuff from evolutionists.John, I have a website where I rant about a lot of this stuff: http://x-evolutionist.com/ It is a work in progress. It has grown word by word from conversations like this that I have had over the last several years.X

  12. X-Evolutionist

    I think the rest of the my comments here should be in the Twitter format: 140 words or less. I had a debate-athon in IMDB.com over the weekend, and my hands hurt so much I can hardly type. Ow. X

  13. Horst

    X, can you prove that God exists?

  14. X-Evolutionist

    Horst asks: "X, can you prove that God exists?" I\’ve been spending all my spare time trying to do just that thing. Check out my website and tell me how I\’m doing: http://www.x-evolutionist.com/ X

  15. Diana

    @X, I forgot to ask this the last time, but does that mean that you also believe in the existence of dinosaurs? I’m not being facetious, I am simply asking about your belief.As for the whole creation vs evolution issue, to me they are nothing more than labels for the same force in the universe – God. Not the God as an external being but as the EVERYTHING. I agree with your point about the creation & adaptation of the finch. But to take it further, I would argue that the finch can be transformed/created into the fish. All it need is to replace ‘nc’ with‘s’. Since God is everything, the power to create (yes, I said create) and transform is latent in ALL creatures including humans. By saying that finches can only transform into other birds (finches) is to limit God’s power for isn’t God’s power also in the finches? As for humans, our capacity is just as great. EVERYTHING is inside us. We have use only 5% of our brains. The 95% lies untapped. Our minds have not yet comprehended what our souls (some say DNA) know. A century ago, the mobile phones were seen as magical devices but now we understand how they work. What if 100 years from now, we can transform at will our hands into tools that we use when require? It may seem impossible but it is only because we don’t understand how it works. Once we do, transforming will seem easy and natural. Ultimately, we will be GOD one day. 🙂

  16. X-Evolutionist

    Hi Diana Le. Yes, I believe that God created dinosaurs, too. I\’m not going to try to answer all of your questions here. Actually, this page is going to be in my website http://x-evolutionist.com/. I wrote another new page about what you said about finches, but I use dogs as an example. Check out this page: http://x-evolutionist.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!25A0033DD834DD1D!11850.entryX

  17. Diana

    Re proof of God\’s existenceIf I was to logically deduct God\’s existence, it would be something like this: The existence of molecules and sub-atoms = the existence of God. No leap of faith is reqired. (For the dissenters, it is a simplistic point of view but it works). Cheers

  18. X-Evolutionist

    Diana Le: If that works for some people, that is fine with me. All I want is to show people that there is no scientific reason that disproves the need for God as creator. X

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s